Valentine’s Day Action: Stop Huge Cuts to Critical Housing Programs!

Spread the word!  February 14th Action!!!

The Feds are seriously looking to cut $100 Billion from the already limited housing-related programs!  Close to one million Section 8, public housing, homeless, elderly, and disabled people could lose their housing!

In solidarity with actions taking place in 25 other cities throughout the U.S., Rally and March in San Francisco this Valentine’s Day!

Monday, Feb 14th is the NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION TO SAVE CRITICAL HUD PROGRAMS led by the National Alliance of HUD Tenants

Join us in stopping the budget cuts to Housing Vouchers, Section 8 PBRA (Project Based Rental Assistance), Homeless Assistance Grants, and other housing related budget items!

!Unase con nosotros para ponerle un alto a los recortes del presupuesto a los Vales de Vivienda, Seccion 8 PBRA, Subvencion de asistencia para personas sin hogar, y otros articulos relacionados al presupuesto de Vivienda!

Monday February 14th

@ 2pm

Rally at San Francisco Civic Center

March to the Federal Building!

 

Lunes 14 de Febrero

a las 2pm

Donde: Centro Civico de San Francisco

iVamos a marchar al Edificio Federal!

Here is a link to the facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=198056183539430

For FLIERS to this action: http://wraphome.org/pages/downloads/Valentine%27s%20Day%20Flyer.pdf

For a FACT SHEET on the housing cuts: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3341

Groups involved in organizing this day of action in San Francisco:

WRAP (Western Regional Advocacy Project), SF Coalition on Homelessness, SF Housing Rights Committee, Causa Justa: Just Cause, Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS), Homes Not Jails, AIDS Housing Alliance/SF, Council of Community Housing Organizations, and many other housing rights groups.

Please get the word out!

Read Full Post »

Those Who Ignore the Past Are Bound to REPEAT IT

This is from a July 6, 2005 PLAZOID. The Plazoid was a brilliant independent, self-published pamphlet/zine that circulated in Arcata in the mid 2000’s.

 

SOON Nazi authorities and the police began to consign members of other groups to the new camps: homosexual men arrested as criminal offenders; Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to obey demands to cease their activities; women accused of prostitution; people labeled “asocial” because they were homeless, begged, or for some other reason did not fit into Nazi society.

In 1936, in preparation for the Olympic Games in Berlin, German police “cleaned up” the city, arresting people deemed inappropriate—prostitutes, street people, petty thieves—and forcing hundreds of Gypsies (Sinti and Roma) into makeshift camps.

All of these early victims were easy targets, people whom other Germans did little or nothing to protect, and whose disappearance from the public scene they often welcomed.

Nazis Increase Power and Targeted Populations
Mass attacks on Nazi targets that included widely respected members of German society did not start until 1938, five years after Hitler was named chancellor. By then Nazis had firm control of all the instruments of state power—the police, courts, laws, civil service, military and press—so they could afford to be less cautious.

The “Euthanasia” Program
During the following year, 1939, Nazi authorities began deadly attacks on one of their major targets: people considered handicapped. Rather than sending them to concentration camps where they would have to be housed and fed along with people who were being held and then sometimes released, disabled people were taken from hospitals and other institutions and sent to designated locations for “special treatment.” That “special treatment” was killing. In just a few years, with the cooperation of scores of doctors, social workers, hospital administrators, and others, Nazi officials organized and carried out the murder of at least 70,000 Germans deemed “unfit for life.” To the extent possible, the authorities tried to hide these killings from the rest of the population, so that family members would not protest.

The Early Targets

The first concentration camp in Germany opened in Dachau in 1933, at a time when the Nazi government was still consolidating its power. Accordingly, it focused on political prisoners—communists, social democrats, and dissidents who posed a threat to the new regime and were unpopular with most other Germans.All of these early victims were easy targets, people whom other Germans did little or nothing to protect, and whose disappearance from the public scene they often welcomed.

http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/background/ideology.html

 

“Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure!”

from the first leaflet of the “White Rose.” The White Rose began distributing anti-government leaflets in mid 1942 protesting against the brutality and evil of the nazi government, and against the extermination of the Jews, which was beginning to become known to more and more people at this time.

Read Full Post »

Rally & March Against CA Budget Cuts to Home Care

SPEAK OUT AGAINST STATE BUDGET CUTS
AFFECTING THE DISABLED, SENIORS & OTHERS

Friday, June 4th
5:00-6:30pm
Eureka Courthouse

A rally and march to speak out regarding Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed state budget cuts to programs/services, will be held from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Friday, June 4 in front of the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka.

Organized by Tri-County Independent Living (TCIL), the focus of the event will be on cuts to Medi-Cal, In-Home Support Services (IHSS), mental health services, Medi-Cal, SSI recipients, Calworks, and Regional Centers as well as education and other programs that directly affect people with disabilities, seniors, children and infants, students, and other California residents. Another focus will be on legitimacy of the Governor’s anti-fraud measures aimed at IHSS care providers and recipients.

“People with disabilities, including seniors, veterans, students and others, have already been affected by extensive budget cuts that were passed last year, points out Chris Jones, Executive Director for TCIL. “Now the Governor is targeting these citizens once again, which will put a further strain on local resources and cost us all more in tax dollars, reduced safety, independence and quality of life for thousands, and in lost lives.”

“The Governor and certain legislators continue to ignore the ramifications of these cuts and refuse to even consider alternative revenue options for helping to balance the budget,” says Cindy Calderon, Systems Change Advocate at TCIL. “They also continue to demonize IHSS providers and recipients through anti-fraud measures that were enacted without input by program participants, were based on unsubstantiated claims by the Governor of “massive fraud” in the IHSS program, and which impose an unwieldy process on IHSS care providers, while greatly compromising the privacy of often vulnerable IHSS recipients.”

This rally is also being held in June to help mark the 11th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead Decision, which affirmed the rights of people with disabilities, seniors and others to live in their own homes instead of institutions.

“Once again the Governor has shown a complete disregard for the spirit of the Olmstead Decision,” adds Calderon. “Further state cuts are a clear indication of the lack of commitment by the State of California to this Supreme Court ruling because they greatly reduce the ability of people with disabilities, seniors and others to live independently at home. This makes no sense, because the cost of keeping a person in their own home using an IHSS care provider is far less than having that person in an institutionalized setting. Cuts to the IHSS program, Medi-Cal, SSI recipients, mental health services and other programs will continue to force many people out of their own homes, into the streets, into hospital emergency rooms, and into nursing homes where there may not even be enough beds to accommodate them,” Calderon further pointed out. “In fact, if the Governor has his way with cutting about half of the IHSS program, then tens of thousands of more Californians will end up losing jobs! ”

The June 4 rally and march will include short speeches from several area social service program recipients as well as care providers, and representatives from the local offices of Assemblyman Wes Chesbro and Senator Pat Wiggins. Chesbro has been invited to speak and may be able to attend if he’s not required to be in Sacramento on that day. There will also be an opportunity to sign letters to local elected officials, including a thanks to District Assembly Member Wes Chesbro, for his ongoing support for the IHSS program, and petitions regarding the budget cuts.

The local chapter of the renowned “Raging Grannies,” as well as a contingent of the marching, performing brass band known as “Bandemonium,” will be on-hand to provide some entertainment. Attendees are encouraged to bring signs and be ready to chant, and to march about two blocks.

For further information about the march/rally, contact Cindy Calderon or Glenn Reed at Tri-County Independent Living, (707) 445-8404 or TTY: (707) 445-8405.

Read Full Post »

Fraud in California’s IHSS Program: The Story of A Simple Lie

by Nick Jiles
May 3, 2010

Since the 2009 summer press conference addressing his proposed cuts to California’s IHSS program Governor Schwarzenegger has been relentless in his condemnation of an allegedly fraud-ridden program which he and his cronies claim is depleting the state’s tax revenue. The governor has no made no secret of his disinterest in closing tax loop holes for some of California’s most profitable corporations or in entertaining the thought of enacting oil tax legislation, both of which would generate much needed revenue but would be in stark contrast to the anti-working class agenda which has embodied his tenure in Sacramento. Perhaps no greater example of his recent attack against California’s working class is his latest effort to eliminate the IHSS program, justified by the blatant lies that comprise his anti-fraud campaign. Armed with fallacious rhetoric and testimony from a handful of county District Attorneys hiding behind the secrecy of Grand Jury findings the governor has championed one number, 25.

The governor speculated that fraud in the IHSS program was as high as 25% statewide, an alarming number for any program receiving state and federal tax revenue. Despite the efforts to ignore his critics, who have proposed such ludicrous measures as validating his estimation with actual data/empirical evidence, the governor has propelled his anti-fraud propaganda forward, using tax revenue to enforce anti-fraud policies and substantiate the urgency of dealing with such a sensitive issue that he claims lacks conclusive data to support his critics. Comments from governor Schwarzenegger’s July 6th, 2009 IHSS Fraud Press Conference included the following, “There is, of course, hesitation amongst the legislators. They say, “Well, we have to do some more studies,” and, “I don’t think we should jump to quick conclusions here,” and, “I don’t think we should make this part of the budget.”

Perhaps the “hesitation” of the governor’s critics could be attributed to the fact that one significant inquiry (unless one considers arbitrary statements from district attorneys as anecdotal evidence) has been made pertaining to fraud in the state’s IHSS program, a statewide audit commissioned by the governor himself in 2007-2008. The audit succeeded in providing an eerily powerful contradiction to the governor’s recent statements regarding the IHSS program. Of the 41 counties which participated in the quality assurance review, conducted by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), nearly 24,000 (23,823) cases were reviewed in attempt to uncover fraud/activities requiring further investigation. Of the cases reviewed, just over 1,000 (1,076) required further investigation and of that number only 557 cases were referred to the California Department of Health Care Services for review. Schwarzenegger’s supporters point to the inadequacies of the audit’s methodology, pointing out the insufficient resources available to adequately find fraud and using such figures as the relatively low amount of home visits conducted during the audit (3,883) to justify the shortcomings of the audit’s conclusion (to be discussed in further detail below). How convenient! Conduct an audit to reveal the ubiquitous fraud of the IHSS program and then dismiss the audit’s findings when you they don’t return the desired results!

One might wonder: Why did the governor fail to mention the results of the audit to the public? Or perhaps even more troubling, how do public officials whose job duties require them to know such information support such a clear attempt to misinform the general public? As we’ve come to expect from the governor, logic ceases to exist when it comes to issues affecting the working class and despite the facts there were public officials who came forward, eager to defend the governor’s unfounded speculation. District Attorney testimony which mirrored the ambiguity of the following statement from Ventura County District Attorney Gregory Totten, “The current estimates range anywhere from on the low side, maybe 5 to 10 percent to 25 percent in terms of the fraud that occurs in this program…” is illustrative of the haphazard journey of speculative nonsense that the governor’s supporters have exhibited when discussing fraud in the IHSS program. After all, the confidence exuded by Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully sounded somewhat convincing, right? “And what we’ve told them is and I know you’ve used the figure and a lot of us agree with that, 25 percent fraud.” To state than an examination of the six grand jury reports does little to alleviate the unsubstantiated conjecture void of empirical evidence is a gross understatement.

Grand jury report findings are protected from public disclosure by the following legal disclaimer: “Grand jury reports area based upon documentary evidence, and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the grand jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a), and 929).” Is it not surprising then that the testimony of District Attorneys in agreement with the governor’s anti-fraud efforts, bolstered grand jury findings with sheepish obedience to his estimations of the magic number, 25%? Another principle element of the grand jury findings espoused by district attorneys who provided testimony was the program’s lack of adequate safeguards against fraud.

However, the IHSS Quality Assurance, the progeny of bi-partisan legislation enacted in 2004 and an active participant in the state’s most recent audit, is comprised of state and county officials whose job duties include monitoring the program for fraudulent activities and ensuring the efficacy and quality of care provided via the program. Counties are also supposed to conduct “targeted reviews” which focus on specified IHSS cases that indicate the potential for fraud. Much has also been made of background checks and technological implementations that would protect consumers from the litany of prisoners plaguing the IHSS program. A recent fallacy extolled by the LA Times stated that, “Requiring background checks of providers and hiring more fraud investigators could save the state hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.” (Op Ed, 7/3/09) The recklessly irresponsible and untrue statement is merely a pathetic attempt to justify the governor’s proposal to spend $26.5 million of California’s tax revenue to investigate fraud that he claimed wasn’t discovered due to lack of available resources at the time of the audit. After reviewing the evidence available (i.e. the state-wide audit discussed above), it is apparent that adding yet another state funded bureaucracy to eradicate the 2% fraud rate that is draining the state’s tax revenue is beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps those who are convinced of the deviant characters serving as IHSS providers statewide and endangering the health of the vulnerable should take into account the following assessment of social workers’ struggles during the Schwarzenegger era, “Catching unscrupulous providers in the IHSS program requires good case management by trained social workers. Unfortunately, the Governor has consistently grossly underfunded the case management oversight in the program throughout his tenure. His budgets fund less than the bare minimum of case oversight — just over 8 hours per year per client to perform a number of activities, including client intake, assessment, provider enrollment, timesheet processing, and overall case monitoring. IHSS social workers often can’t get out to see their clients more than once a year. To make matters worse, the Governor permanently cut county IHSS budgets by another $15 million in 2008-09.” Apparently it’s difficult to find fraud when the very people employed to help monitor it find themselves subject to the governor’s guillotine as well.

Finding one’s way through the maze of guesswork and ancillary commentary of governor Schwarzenegger is easy enough when one has the facts. The people governor Schwarzenegger claims to represent in his efforts to eradicate waste and fraud within the IHSS program are the same people who will inevitably suffer in the event that he realizes his elitist agenda, an agenda that leaves California’s most vulnerable population without the care it deserves. I leave you with the following, the CONCLUSION from the most recent statewide audit of the program, “We continue to see the positive impact of QA and look forward to our continual collaborative efforts to ensure improvement and consistency in the delivery of services for all IHSS recipients and to minimize the potential for abuse or misuse of program funds, to enable more funds to be available to serve those in need.”

-Nick Jiles is an organizer with CUHW (California United Home Care Workers) and can be reached at: nicholasj@cuhw.org

Read Full Post »